Royal zoysiagrass

ABSTRACT

An asexually reproduced cultivar of perennial zoysiagrass that possess a unique combination of characteristics including purple anthers and white stigmas, an absence of leaf blade hairs, high turf quality and density, good shade tolerance, salinity tolerance, resistance to Rhizoctonia blight and zoysiagrass mite, moderate resistance to tropical sod webworm and hunting billbug, susceptibility to fall army worm and tawny mole cricket and a distinct DNA fingerprint.

Botanical classification: Zoyzia matrella×Zoysia japonica.

Variety denomination: ‘Royal’.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates to a new and distinct perennial zoysiagrasscultivar identified as ‘Royal zoysiagrass’, referred to herein as‘Royal’. ‘Royal’ is the result of a natural open pollination of materialclone TAES-2175 (e.g., K-151). The seedling progenies from the materialline were vegetatively increased and tested in a replicated field trialat the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University,Dallas, Tex., beginning in 1985. In 1990, several exceptional entrieswere selected from among the trials, one of which was designated asDALZ9006, which was later named ‘Royal’. The inventive variety exhibitsa fine texture typical of Z. matrella-type clones such as ‘Diamond’(U.S. Plant Pat. No. 10,636), ‘Cavalier’ (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 10,778)and ‘Emerald’ and is useful for home lawns, golf course fairways, tees,green surrounds, recreational sports areas or other applications thatinvolve mowing heights from 1.0 to 5.0 cm.

For purposes of registration under the International Convention for theProtection of New Varieties of Plants (“UPOV”) and noting Section 1612of the Manual of Plant Examination Procedures, the new variety ofzoysiagrass of the present invention is named ‘Royal’.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a new and distinct asexually reproducedvariety of perennial zoysiagrass between 1 to 3 years of age (Zoysiamatrella (L.) Merr)×Z. japonica Steud.). The variety name is ‘Royalzoysiagrass’ and is characterized by its purple anthers, white stigmas,an absence of leaf blade hairs and high turf quality among other uniquecharacteristics, all of which are maintained when propagated asexually.

The novel features which are believed to be characteristic of theinvention together with further objects and advantages will be betterunderstood from the following description when considered in connectionwith the accompanying figures.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

For a more complete understanding of the present invention, reference isnow made to the following descriptions taken in conjunction with theaccompanying drawing, in which:

FIG. 1 is a photograph of the leaf blade and ligule of ‘Royal’;

FIG. 2 is a photograph of the inflorescence of ‘Royal’; and

FIG. 3 is a DNA fingerprint of ‘Royal’ as compared to zoysiagrassvarieties ‘Meyer’, ‘Emerald’, ‘Crowne’ and ‘Diamond’.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

CHARACTERISTICS

‘Royal’ was characterized in greenhouse and field conditions and is aunique variety of zoysiagrass. Seeds collected from open pollinatedmaternal clones of the zoysiagrass germplasm nursery were planted,developed into plugs, and established in small field turf plots. ‘Royal’demonstrated superior biotic and phenotypic characteristics and, thus,propagated by cuttings of stolons and rhizomes by rooting them in soiland expanding the rooted material to provide planting stock. Theplanting stock was observed for performance characteristics and forcomparison of morphological characters after propagation. The inventivevariety has been propagated by sod, plugs, sprigs and stolons. Seedreproduction with self-fertility is not common in the Zoysia spp. Noseedling establishment from ‘Royal’ has been observed in eithergreenhouse or field studies.

‘Royal’ is distinguished from other varieties of zoysiagrass by acombination of characteristics including shade tolerance, salinitytolerance, turf quality, resistance to zoysiagrass mite and Rhizoctoniablight (brown patch) and moderate resistance to tropical sod webworm andhunting billbug. ‘Royal’ is closest in phenotypic appearance to thezoysiagrass variety ‘Emerald’ (unpatented). ‘Royal’ generallydemonstrates fair-to-good winter hardiness. Further, the inventivevariety grows at an intermediate to rapid rate, and exhibits anintermediate water use requirement. ‘Royal’ produces little thatch withan optimum mowing height of 1 to 5 mm. ‘Royal’ generally grows to covera plot area within 10-12 months of establishment from 7 mm×10 mm plugsplanted on 30 mm centers.

‘Royal’ spreads by both rhizome and stolon growth. The stolons have amean internode length of 23.6 mm between the fourth and fifth nodes,with a mean internode width of 1.21 mm and node diameter of 1.53 mm(Table 1) (Reinert et al., 2002a). Stolons of ‘Royal’ rootadventitiously at the nodes.

The internode stolon color of ‘Royal’ exposed to full sun is 5R 3/2 ;color notations of plant tissues were based on the Munsell Color Chartsfor Plant Tissues, Munsell Color, Baltimore, Md., 1977. One of ordinaryskill in the art recognizes that color notations are affected by lightquality, photoperiod, and general growth of the plant. Measured infull-sun under field conditions in August, 2000, the genetic, adaxialleaf color of ‘Royal’ is 2.5G 4/4 to 2.5G 5/2 as compared to ‘El Toro’(U.S. Plant Pat No. 5,845), which has a leaf color of 2.5 G 5/2 , and‘Meyer’ (unpatented), which has a color of 2.5 G 4/2 (Munsell, 1977).

The ligule of ‘Royal’ is a row of silky hairs, achieving approximately 1mm in maximum length. The ligule is illustrated in FIG. 1.

Leaf blades of ‘Royal’ are rolled in the bud, and are flat and stiff.Measurements of the third youngest leaf included a width of 1.36 mm anda length of 8.2 mm (Table 2) (Reinert et al., 2002a), which issignificantly narrower and shorter than ‘Meyer’, ‘Crowne’ and ‘El Toro’varieties. The abaxial/adaxial leaf surfaces lack hairs. Leaf blades areillustrated in FIG. 1.

Measured under greenhouse conditions at Dallas,Tex., January 1996, theflag leaf of ‘Royal’ has a mean length of 5.24 mm. ‘Royal’ has purpleanthers and white colored stigmas, undistinguishable in shade of color.The inflorescence is a terminal spike-like raceme, with spikelets onshort pedicels (see FIG. 2). ‘Royal’ has a mean culm length of 6.7 cm,and an inflorescence length of 22.9 mm with a mean of 27.6 florets perraceme. The raceme is longer than ‘Diamond’ and more similar in lengthto ‘Crowne’.

The somatic chromosome number in ‘Royal’ is 40.

‘Royal’ was entered in the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program,National Zoysiagrass Test-1991 (NTEP-1991) and was evaluated alongside23 other zoysiagrass genotypes at 22 different geographic locationscovering 17 states in the United States. The evaluation period lasted 4years (1992-1995). In the NTEP-1991 test for the years 1992-1995,‘Royal’ ranked ninth for the last two years and ninth overall in qualityamong the zoysiagrass genotypes tested (Table 3) (Morris, 1995b).Further, ‘Royal’ had the best density rating among the entries over the4-yr evaluation period (Table 4) (Morris, 1993; Morris, 1994a; Morris,1994b; and Morris 1995a).

The Turf Performance Index (TPI) is based on the number of times anentry occurred in the top statistical group, ranked ‘Royal’ in the topgrouping 25 times as compared to ‘Cavalier’ (24 top groupings),‘Emerald’ (23 top groupings) and ‘Diamond’ (22 top groupings). Incontrast, the commercial standard varieties, ‘Meyer’ and ‘El Toro’,ranked in the top statistical grouping only 13 and 11 times,respectively. In studies in Griffin, Ga., ‘Royal’ was ranked among thedensest turfs having good genetic color (Carrow, 1991; Carrow, 1992).

In the NTEP-1991 evaluation, ‘Royal ’ exhibited good shade tolerance ascompared to the other zoysiagrasses. Each genotype was planted andevaluated in a shaded site (ca. 90%) under live-oak trees (Quercusvirginiana Mill.) in Dallas, Tex., on September 1992 (Table 5) (Yamamatoand Engelke, 1996). Turf performance characteristics evaluated at theshaded site included; turf quality, turf cover, green cover, color,density and texture. Turf cover was evaluated as a percentage of plotarea covered with turf, and the TPI was used to evaluate overall turfquality. In general, the varieties took nearly 9 months to spread andcover at least 50% of the plot area. Thereafter, the ‘Royal’, ‘Crowne’,‘Emerald’, ‘Zorro’ and ‘Diamond’ varieties increased turf cover togreater than 80%. ‘Royal’ ranked fifth behind ‘Diamond’, ‘Zorro’ and‘Crowne’ among the 25 entries in the trial.

STRESS RESISTANCE

The inventive variety exhibits excellent salt tolerance. Undergreenhouse conditions in hydroponics tanks, the salinity was graduallyincreased from zero to 400 mM NaCl. ‘Royal’ sustained a 33.6%leaf-firing injury, which was similar to ‘El Toro’, ‘Emerald’ and‘Cavalier’ and significantly less than ‘Meyer’, which sustained 54.3%damage (Marcum et al., 1998).

‘Royal’ is resistant to Rhizoctonia blight and zoysiagrass mite andmoderately resistant to tropical sod webworm and hunting billbug.Rhizoctonia blight (brown patch) is caused by the fungal pathogenRhizoctonia solani Kühn. ‘Meyer’ and ‘Royal’ (10.8 and 15.8% diseaseinfection, respectively) were among the most resistant to the fungusover a 7-day evaluation period when 24 zoysiagrass genotypes wereinoculated under ideal disease conditions with the fungal pathogen in agrowth chamber at Dallas, Tex. (Table 7) (Metz et al., 1994).

‘Royal’ is resistant to the zoysiagrass mite Eriophyes zoysiae Baker,Kono and O'Neill as compared to ‘Meyer’, ‘Belair’ (unpatented) and manyother zoysiagrass genotypes which are very susceptible to the mite(Table 8) (Reinert et al., 1993). This mite has been identified inMaryland, Florida, Texas and other zones of extensive use ofzoysiagrass. Under heavy infestation pressure in greenhouse conditions,a mean of 0.2 infested leaves per 5×5 cm plant was observed in theinventive variety. In comparison, ‘Diamond’, ‘Cavalier’, ‘Belair’ and‘Meyer’ each exhibited greater than 9.4 infested leaves per plant.

The inventive variety is susceptible to fall armyworm (Spodopterafrugiperda J. E. Smith) larvae (Reinert and Engelke, unpublished data)and tawny mole cricket (Scapteriscus vicinus Scudder) (Braman et al.,1994).

‘Royal’ is moderately resistant to feeding by tropical sod webworm(Herpetogramma phaeopteralis Guenée) larvae. The visual rating was 4.6for the inventive variety as compared to the 1.4 visual rating of‘Meyer’ (Table 9) (Reinert and Engelke, 2001). The visual rating isdetermined on a scale of 1-9, with 1=near complete defoliation. Larvaethat developed on ‘Royal’ weighed 15.1 mg after 15 days of feeding,which was larger than the 7.2 mg larvae that developed on the mostresistant ‘Cavalier’, and one-half the size of larvae that developed on‘Meyer’ (36.4 mg) (Table 10). Additionally, larvae on ‘Royal’ required4.4 days longer to develop to adult emergence.

‘Royal’ is moderately resistant to the hunting billbug (Sphenophorusvenatus vestitus (Chittenden)) in a cage study with eight otherzoysiagrasses in Dallas, Tex. (Table 11) (Reinert et al., 2002b).Compared to ‘Meyer’ and ‘Palisades’, which exhibited 44.4 and 45.5%leaf-firing damage of the plant canopy, respectively, ‘Royal’ expressed20.95% leaf-firing damage. Evaluation of whole plant growth potential(dry weight) indicated that ‘Royal’ sustained a 53.46% reduction ascompared to a 70.2%, a 73.9% and a 73.9% reduction for ‘El Toro’,‘Meyer’ and ‘Palisades’, respectively. The lower the reduction thegreater expression of natural plant resistance.

DNA FINGERPRINTING

Molecular markers have been used widely and successfully for genotypingvarieties and species. Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP) isone such highly informative marker assay to generate fingerprints ofsimple and complex species and cultivars. The fingerprints generated forthe identification of the cultivar ‘Royal’ as compared to cultivars‘Emerald’, ‘Meyer’, ‘Diamond’ and ‘Crowne’ used sixty AFLP primercombinations. Of which, the primer combinations that provided thegreatest separation included P-AGA/ M-CAA, P-AGA/ M-CCA, P-AGA/ M-CGTand P-AGA/ M-CTC. The latter primer combination, P-AGA/ M-CCT, allowedamplification of signature bands at 320, 300, 300, 320 and 240 base pairlengths (FIG. 3). These signature bands are useful to identify anddifferentiate ‘Royal’ cultivar from other varieties tested.

TABLE 1 Rhizome internode length as measured between the fourth andfifth nodes, internode diameter of the fourth internode, and nodediameter of the fourth node of nine Zoysia cultivars. Plants grown insand beds in the field under irrigation during the summer from June toSeptember 2000, Dallas, TX. Internode Internode Node Cultivar length(mm) diameter (mm) diameter (mm) El Toro 43.6 a ¹ 1.71 a 2.63 aPalisades 40.0 ab 1.55 ab 2.48 a De Anza 34.5 bc 1.39 bc 1.93 cd Crowne31.7 cd 1.56 ab 2.36 ab Cavalier 28.8 cd 1.38 bc 1.88 ed Zorro 27.0 cd1.25 c 1.76 de Meyer 26.5 cde 1.54 ab 2.16 bc Royal 23.6 de 1.21 c 1.53e Diamond 18.4 e 1.19 c 1.56 e LSD  8.1 0.22 0.31 ¹Mean in a columnfollowed by the same letter are not significantly different by Fisher'sprotected LSD (P = 0.01). Data taken from Reinert et al., 2002a.

TABLE 2 Leaf blade width and length measured on the third youngest leafof nine Zoysia cultivars. Plants were grown in sand beds in the fieldunder irrigation during the summer from June to September 2000, Dallas,TX. Cultivar Blade width (mm) Blade length (mm) El Toro 3.51 ab¹ 10.8abc Palisades 3.16 b  8.5 bcd De Anza 1.73 c  6.7 de Crowne 3.46 ab 11.1ab Cavalier 1.58 c 10.0 abc Zorro 1.35 cd 10.9 ab Meyer 3.54 a 12.2 aRoyal 1.36 cd  8.2 cd Diamond 1.09 d   4.4 e LSD 0.39  2.7 ¹Mean in acolumn followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different byFisher's protected LSD (P = 0.01).

TABLE 3 Mean turfgrass quality ratings of 24 zoysiagrass cultivars grownin the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program; National ZoysiagrassTest-1991 at 22 locations in the United States (1992-1995). Turfgrassquality ratings 1-9; 9 ideal turf¹ Mean Overall Overall Overall OverallOverall ranking mean mean mean mean mean 1992- Variety 1992 1993 19941995 1992-95 95 Cavalier 5.95 6.23 5.89 5.99 5.93 1 TC 2033 5.85 6.106.11 5.96 5.91 2 Sunburst 5.83 5.91 5.81 5.87 5.85 3 TC 5018 5.80 5.815.92 5.70 5.81 4 Emerald 5.74 6.21 6.05 5.73 5.79 5 Omni 5.56 6.13 6.065.69 5.73 6 QT 2004 5.56 6.01 5.86 5.57 5.63 7 DALZ8508 5.59 6.06 5.745.60 5.60 8 Royal 5.65 6.05 5.59 5.54 5.59 9 Palisades 5.82 5.82 5.465.44 5.59 9 Crowne 5.80 5.76 5.50 5.45 5.55 11 El Toro 5.78 5.63 5.345.41 5.50 12 CD 259-13 5.30 5.53 5.74 5.49 5.40 13 Meyer 5.26 5.70 5.765.47 5.39 14 QT 2047 5.37 5.39 5.26 5.16 5.30 15 Belair 4.99 5.58 5.615.02 5.16 16 DALZ8516 4.72 5.42 4.96 5.05 4.86 17 Diamond 4.40 5.03 4.584.36 4.41 18 DALZ8501 4.88 4.31 3.99 4.05 4.27 19 DALZ8701 4.23 4.103.71 3.58 3.85 20 LSD 0.22 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.17 ¹To determine statisticaldifferences among entries, subtract one entry's mean from anotherentry's mean. Statistical differences occur when this value is largerthan the corresponding LSD value (P = 0.05). Data taken from Morris,1995b.

TABLE 4 Turf performance index for density ratings of the NationalTurfgrass Evaluation Program; National Zoysiagrass Test-1991 summarizedby season for the 4-yr period (1992- 1995). Turf Performance Index¹Genotype Spring Summer Fall Total Royal 6 10 9 25 Cavalier 5 10 9 24Emerald 7 7 9 23 DALZ8508 5 9 9 23 Diamond 5 9 8 22 Marquis 5 8 9 22 QT2004 5 8 7 20 DALZ8516 3 8 8 19 Omni 3 7 8 18 DALZ8501 2 4 7 13 Meyer 45 4 13 TC 5018 3 4 5 12 Sunburst 3 5 4 12 CD259-13 4 4 4 12 Palisades 34 4 11 El Toro 2 4 5 11 Belair 3 3 4 10 QT 2047 3 3 3 9 Crowne 3 3 3 9DALZ8701 0 3 3 6 TGS-W10 1 2 2 5 JZ-1 0 3 2 5 TGS-B10 0 2 1 3 KoreanCommon 0 2 1 3 ¹Turf Performance Index is the number of times an entrywas rated in the top statistical group. Data taken from Morris, 1993;Morris, 1994a; Morris, 1994b; and Morris 1995a

TABLE 5 Turf Performance Index and percent ground cover for the NationalTurfgrass Evaluation Program; National Zoysiagrass Test-1991 plantedunder 90% shade at Dallas, TX (1992-1995). Entry TPI¹ % plot cover RankDiamond 46 93.9 1 DALZ8516 46 93.9 1 DALZ8508 42 85.7 3 Zorro ² 41 83.74 Crowne 40 81.6 5 Royal 40 81.6 5 ‘Emerald 40 81.6 5 TC2033 40 81.6 5Palisades 38 77.6 9 Cavalier 36 73.5 10 El Toro 32 65.0 11 DALZ8701 2959.1 12 CD2013 25 51.0 13 TGS-W10³ 25 51.0 13 DALZ8501 24 49.0 15Sunburst 23 46.9 16 TC5018 22 44.9 17 ITR90-3 19 38.8 18 Korean Common³17 34.7 19 Belair 16 32.6 21 Meyer 16 32.6 21 TGS-B10³ 16 32.6 21 QT204715 30.6 23 JZ-1#A89 ³ 13 26.5 24 CD259-13 11 22.4 25 QT2004 10 20.4 26¹Turf Performance Index is the number of times an entry was rated in thetop statistical group Maximum number of observations = 49. ²Evaluated asDALZ9006. ³ Seeded entry. Data taken from Yamamoto and Engelke, 1996.

TABLE 6 Salinity tolerance of 59 zoysiagrass genotypes in greenhouseHoagland's solutions (mean percent salt injury to shoots for 20 ratingdates) tested at Dallas, TX. Genotype Zoysia spp.¹ Mean % injury P9 Z.matrella 32 a ² Diamond Z. matrella 33 ab DALZ8501 Z. matrella 33 ab T38Z. matrella 33 ab T16 Z. macrostaychya 33 ab T14 Z. macrostaychya 33 abP47 Z. matrella 33 abc P2 Z. matrella 33 abc DALZ8701 Z. matrella 35 a-dDALZ8508 Z. matrella 37 a-e P58 Z. sinica 37 a-e P49 Z. sinica 37 a-e ElToro Z. japonica 38 a-e J239 Z. japonica 38 a-e P50 Z. sinica 39 a-f T4Z. sinica 40 a-g Royal Z. matrella 41 a-h K227 Z. matrella 41 a-h K12 Z.matrella 41 a-h K245 Z. japonica 41 a-h Emerald Z. matrella x Z.pacifica 41 a-h Cavalier Z. matrella 42 a-h TC2033 Z. matrella 42 a-hK103 Z. korenia 42 a-h QT2047 Z. japonica 42 a-h K260 Z. korenia 43 a-iK98 Z. korenia 43 b-i J207 Z. tenuifolia 43 b-i T44 Z. sinica 45 c-iJ222 Z. matrella 45 d-j K99 Z. korenia 46 e-j T21 Z. macrostaychya 46e-k Crowne Z. japonica 46 ek² Palisades Z. japonica 46 e-k J225 Z.matrella 47 e-k K246 Z. macrostaychya 49 f-k J3-2 Z. japonica 49 f-kBelair Z. japonica 50 f-k DALZ8516 Z. japonica 50 g-m Sunburst Z.japonica 52 h-m QT2004 Z. matrella 54 i-m J87-2 Z. japonica 56 j-nITR90-3 Z. japonica 56 j-n K248 Z. macrostaychya 57 j-n TC5018 Z.japonica 57 k-n Meyer Z. japonica 58 l-n CD2013 Z. matrella 59 l-nCD259-13 Z. japonica 60 l-o K254 Z. matrella 61 m-o JS10-3 Z. japonica66 n-p TGS-W10 Z. japonica 66 n-p K241 Z. japonica 71 o-q JS23 Z.japonica 73 pq J94-5 Z. japonica 73 pq TGS-B10 Z. japonica 73 pq K157 Z.japonica 74 pq Korean Common Z. japonica 76 pq JZ-1 Z. japonica 79 qK162 Z. japonica 81 q ¹Species identity is sometimes an estimate. ²Means with the same letter are not significantly different byWaller-Duncan k-ratio t test (k- = 100) (P = 0.05). Data taken fromMarcum et al., 1994.

TABLE 7 Resistance to Rhizoctonia blight (caused by Rhizoctonia solani)among zoysiagrasses in a laboratory study, Dallas. TX. Textural Cultivarclass¹ Mean % infection² Mean recovery³ CD2013 3 100.0 a⁴ 1.0 a Koreancommon 4  77.8 b 1.9 b Crown 4  76.7 b 2.0 bc DALZ8701 3  73.0 bc 2.5def Sunburst 4  70.0 bcd 2.3 cde Belair 4  67.5 bcd 1.3 a GT2047 4  64.2bcd 2.2 bcd JZ1A89-1 3  60.8 cd 1.3 a GT2004 3  57.5 cde 2.2 bcdDALZ8501 1  55.8 def 2.3 cde CD259-13 4  53.3 d-g 2.2 bcd TC5018 4  42.5e-h 2.3 cde TGS-W10 4  38.3 e-h 2.2 bcd El Toro 4  37.5 ghi 2.7 efgEmerald 3  36.2 ghi 2.3 cde Palisades 4  35.0 hi 2.5 def TGS-B10 4  34.2hi 2.0 bc DALZ8508 2  32.5 hij 2.8 fg DALZ8516 2  30.0 hij 2.8 fg TC20333  29.2 hij 2.7 efg Diamond 1  26.7 h-k 3.0 g Cavalier 3  20.0 ijk 2.3cde Royal 3  15.8 jk 2.5 def Meyer 2  10.8 k 3.0 g ¹Textural class ofzoysiagrass: 1 = short, narrow leaves; 2 = short, wide leaves; 3 = long,narrow leaves; 3 = long, wide leaves. ²Mean foliar blighting percentagesfrom a growth chamber inoculation with Rhizoctonia solani under heavydisease pressure. ³Indicates cultivars recovery from disease andregrowth of leaf tissue in a greenhouse environment, where 3 = bestrecovery; and 1 = worst recovery. ⁴Means followed by the same letter arenot significantly different by Waller-Duncan k-ratio t test (k = 100) (P= 0.05). Only selected means are presented. Data taken from Metz, 1994.

TABLE 8 Mean number of mite-damaged leaves per zoysiagrass plant in agreenhouse study infested with high populations of zoysiagrass mite(Eriophyes zoysia) (18 reps.). Leaves with symptoms/plant^(1,2) (date ofevaluation) Leaf texture Mean for Cultivar class 3 Apr. 1992 24 Apr.1992 combined dates Royal 3  0.2 a 0.2 a   0.2 a DALZ8508 2  0.7 b 0.6ab  0.6 b DALZ8516 2  1.8 d 0.3 ab  1.0 b Emerald 3  1.3 bc 0.9 b  1.1 bDALZ8501 1  1.4 cd 2.6 c  2.0 c Crowne 4  5.4 ef 2.3 c  3.9 d El Toro 4 5.6 ef 2.8 c  4.2 d TC2033 2  4.4 e 4.3 d  4.4 d Palisades 4  7.5 fg4.0 cd  5.8 e CD2031 2  7.6 gh 7.9 e  7.8 f Diamond 1  7.8 gh 9.4 ef 8.6 g DALZ8701 1  9.3 h 9.4 ef  9.4 g Cavalier 3  9.1 h 9.8 ef  9.5 gMeyer 2  9.9 h 9.9 ef  9.9 g Belair 2 10.0 h 9.9 f  9.9 g JZ-1 4 10.0 h9.9 f 10.0 g ¹Number of mite infested leaves per plant (>10 = 10).Infested recognized as rolled leaf or hooked leaf tip. ²Data transformedusing LOG(N+0.5) for analysis. Means in a column followed the sameletter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan k-ratio t test(k = 100) (P = 0.05). Data taken from Reinert et al., 1993.

TABLE 9 Visual damage evaluation of zoysiagrass, Zoysia spp. genotypesas an indication of resistance to the tropical sod webworm,Herpetogramma phaeopteralis in greenhouse tests at Dallas, TX (16reps.¹). Zoysiagrass Genotype Visual Damage¹ DALZ8501 7.4 a² Cavalier7.0 a JZ-1 6.6 ab CD259-13 5.7 bc Crowne 5.6 bcd Emerald 5.5 bcdDALZ8508 5.3 cd DALZ8701 5.0 cd CD2031 4.8 cd Royal 4.6 d TC5018 4.5 deSunburst² 4.5 de Diamond 3.5 fg Belair 3.5 fg El Toro 3.1 g Palisades ²3.1 g TC2033 2.5 g Meyer 1.4 h DALZ8516 1.2 h ¹Worm damage ratings 1 to9; 1 = near complete defoliation, 9 = no damage. ²Only 5 replicates wereevaluated for Sunburst and Palisades. ³Means in a column followed by thesame letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan k-ratio ttest (k = 100) (P = 0.05). Data taken from Reinert and Engelke, 2001.

TABLE 10 Resistance to tropical sod webworm, Herpetogrammaphaeopteralis, in zoysiagrass (Zoysia spp.): survival, larval and pupaweight and development time in laboratory no-choice study, Dallas, TX.15-day-old-larvae Pupa Zoysiagrass Alive Wt Alive wt Days to genotype(%)¹ (mg)² (%)¹ (mg)³ to pupa⁴ Cavalier 60.0 7.2 ab⁵ 40.0 30.6 h 31.0 aKorean Common 53.3 6.3 a 46.7 34.9 ef 29.6 a E1 Toro 80.0 6.9 a 66.737.S de 27.5 b DALZ8501 60.0 7.5 ab 60.0 32.0 gh 27.1 bc Palisades 73.310.0 abc 73.3 42.1 abc 25.6 cd JZ-1 86.7 14.2 abc 80.0 34.0 fg 24.3 deDALZ8508 86.7 10.7 abc 80.0 36.8 def 24.8 de Belair 86.3 15.0 bc 80.044.3 a 23.6 ef Crowne 80.0 15.6 c 73.3 37.3 de 24.3 de Royal 86.7 15.1bc 73.3 37.8 de 24.2 de Emerald 73.3 17.1 c 40.0 41.2 bc 22.4 f Diamond86.3 37.5 d 86.7 36.8 ef 19.7 g Meyer 93.3 36.4 d 93.3 43.4 ab 19.4 gDALZ8516 100 41.0d 100 39.8 cd 19.1 g Zoysiagrass Adult genotype Alive(%)¹ Days to adult⁴ Cavalier 33.3 39.4 a Korean Common 46.7 38.4 ab E1Toro 66.7 36.7 bc DALZ8501 60.0 36.2 c Palisades 66.7 35.3 cd JZ-1 60.033.9 de DALZ8508 73.3 33.4 e Belair 66.7 33.0 ef Crowne 66.7 33.0 efRoyal 53.3 32.9 ef Emerald 40.0 31.3 f Diamond 86.6 28.9 g Meyer 86.628.6 g DALZ8516 93.3 28.5 g ¹Mean percentage of larvae alive at 15 dayafter agg hatch, at pupation and at adult emergence. ²Mean weight ofsurviving larvae after feeding on each genotype for 15 days. ³Mean pupaweight for only individuals that pupated (weight taken with 1 day ofpupation). ⁴Mean number of days from egg hatch to pupation and adultemergence for larvae on each grass ⁵Means in a column followed by thesame letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan k-ratio ttest (k = 100) (P = 0.05). Data taken from Reinert and Engelke, 2001.

TABLE 11 Resistance among zoysiagrass cultivars to larval feeding by thehunting billbug (Sphenophorus venatus vestitus), Dallas, TX(June-September 2000). Plant response Plant canopy damage Total plantmass Cultivar Species¹ % leaf-firing² % reduction ³ Diamond Zm  6.08 a⁴26.29 a Zorro Zm  9.76 ab 35.72 ab Cavalier Zm 27.58 bc 48.89 bc RoyalZm 20.95 abc 53.46 cd Crowne Zj 40.55 cd 65.42 de De Anza Zj 21.90 abc68.64 de El Toro Zj 24.93 abc 70.24 e Meyer Zj 44.38 d 73.90 e PalisadesZj 45.49 d 76.10 e ¹ Zm = Zoysia matrella; Zj = Z. japonica. ²Leaf-firing was considered as an above ground symptom expression of theroot feeding damage by billbug larvae. Plants were ranked on a scale of1-9, 1 = severe leaf firing, 9 = no leaf firing. The % damage = [(check− treatment) / check] × 100. ³% reduction for cultivar = [(amount incheck) − (amount in treatment) / check] × 100. ⁴ Means in a column notfollowed by the same letter are significantly different by LSD test (P <0.05). Data from Reinert et al., 2002b.

As one of ordinary skill in the art will readily appreciate from thedisclosure of the present composition of matter may be utilizedaccording to the present invention. Accordingly, the appended claim isintended to include within its scope such compositions.

REFERENCES

Patents

U.S. Plant Pat. No. 5,845

U.S. Plant Pat. No. 11,570

U.S. Plant Pat. No. 10,778

U.S. Plant Pat. No. 10,636

U.S. Plant Pat. No. 10,187

Publications

Braman, S. K., A. F. Pendley, R. N. Carrow and M. C. Engelke. 1994.Potential resistance in zoysiagrasses to the tawny mole crickets(Orthoptera:Gryllotalpidae) FL Entomol. 77(3): 301-305.

Carrow, R. N. 1991. Zoysiagrass performance, water use, and rooting asaffected by traffic and nitrogen. USGA Annu. Rep., Univ. of GA.,Griffin, Ga. 5p. 1 table.

Carrow, R. N. 1992. Zoysiagrass performance, water use, and rooting asaffected by traffic and nitrogen. USGA Annu. Rep., Univ. of GA, Griffin,Ga. 18 p. 11 tables.

Marcum, K. B., S. J. Anderson and M. C. Engelke. 1998. Salt gland ionsecretion: A salinity tolerance mechanism among five zoysiagrassspecies. Crop. Sci. 38: 806-810.

Metz, S. P., P. F. Colbaugh and M. C. Engelke. 1994a. Rhizoctonia blighton inoculated zoysiagrasses. APS BCT Test Data 9: 158.

Morris, K. 1993. National zoysiagrass test—1991, Progress report 1992.Nat. Turfgrass Eval. Prog. USDA-ARS, Beltsville, Md. NTEP No. 93-4: 32p.

Morris, K. 1994a. National zoysiagrass test—1991, Progress report 1993.Nat. Turfgrass Eval. Prog. USDA-ARS, Beltsville, Md. NTEP No. 94-5: 54p.

Morris, K. 1994b. National zoysiagrass test—1991, Progress report 1994.Nat. Turfgrass Eval. Prog. USDA-ARS, Beltsville, Md. NTEP No. 95-8: 66p.

Morris, K. 1995a. National zoysiagrass test—1991, Progress report 1995.Nat. Turfgrass Eval. Prog. USDA-ARS, Beltsville, Md. NTEP No. 96-6: 54p.

Morris, K. 1995b. National zoysiagrass test—1991, Final report 1992-95.Nat. Turfgrass Eval. Prog. USDA-ARS, Beltsville, Md. NTEP No. 96-15: 101p.

Munsell Color Service. 1977. Munsell soil and plant tissue chart.GretagMacbeth, New Windsor, N.Y.

Reinert, J. A. and M. C. Engelke. 2001. Resistance in zoysiagrass,Zoysia spp., to the tropical sod webworm, Herpetogramma phaeopteralisGuenee. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 9: 798-801.

Reinert, J. A., M. C. Engelke, J. E. McCoy, D. L. Hays, D. Genovesi andJ. J. Heitholt. 2002a. Growth characteristics of nine Zoysia cultivars.(unpublished manuscript).

Reinert, J. A., M. C. Engelke, J. E. McCoy, D. L. Hays and J. J.Heitholt. 2002b. Resistance in zoysiagrass (Zoysia matrella) to thehunting billbug (Sphenophorus venatus vestitus). (unpublishedmanuscript).

Reinert, J. A., M. C. Engelke, and S. J. Morton. 1993. Zoysiagrassresistance to the zoysiagrass mite, Eriophyes zoysiae (Acari:Eriopyidae). Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 7: 349-352.

White, R. H., M. C. Engelke, S. J. Morton and B. A. Ruemmele. 1993.Irrigation water requirement of zoysiagrass. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J.7: 587-593.

Yamamoto, I. and M. C. Engelke. 1996. 1996 update of zoysiagrassperformance under 90% shade conditions. TX Turfgrass Res.-1996.Consolidated Prog. Rep. TURF-96-11: 65-72.

What is claimed is:
 1. A new and distinct cultivar of an asexuallyreproduced Zoysia matrella plant, as herein illustrated and described.